Torok 2010 Lacertidae distribution Romania

8/7/2019 Torok 2010 Lacertidae distribution Romania

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torok-2010-lacertidae-distribution-romania 1/14

Sc. Annals of DDI Tulcea, Romaniavol. 16 2010

SCIENTIFIC ANNALS OF THE DANUBE DELTA INSTITUTE, TULCEA – ROMANIA, 2010 71

9. GIS technique used for managing data on distribution inRomania of the species beloging to fam. Lacertidae

TÖRÖK ZsoltAddress: Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development: 165 Babadag street, 820112 Tulcea, Romania; e-mail: [email protected]

BSTRACT. The present paper shows details on the structure of the GIS-based data-base created in order to carryout accurate analyzes of the spatial distribution on national level of the species belonging to the Lacertidae family. Theresults of the data processing shows that there are 1015 records (on a total number of 613 local administrative

territories) of Sand Lizards (Lacerta agilis), 775 records (on a total number of 446 local administrative territories) of Green Lizards (L. viridis), 65 records (on a total number of 30 local administrative territories) of Balkan Green Lizards (L.

trilineata), 66 records (on a total number of 38 local administrative territories) of Meadow Lizards (L. praticola), 440records (on a total number of 226 local administrative territories) of Viviparous Lizards (L. vivipara), 328 records (on atotal number of 202 local administrative territories) of Wall Lizards (Podarcis muralis), 288 records (on a total number of 126 local administrative territories) of Balkan Wall Lizards (P. taurica) and 34 records (on a total number of 12 localadministrative territories) of Steppe Runners (Eremias arguta) made in Romania up to the year 2007.

Key words: data-base, lizards, Lacerta, Podarcis, Eremias, distribution, arealography, Romania

INTRODUCTION

For the proper assessment of the current status and evolution of wild species there were developed varioustechnical means that allow comparative analysis of the available data. Most of the data-bases includesinformation on the current presence of various species in a certain area (e.g. in protected areas). Only in theRomanian mainland there were recorded almost 25,000 animal species [20] and at about 4,000 species of superior plants (out of which more than 3,300 are native species) [6]. Furthermore, in the marine waters thatbelong to Romania, there were recorded at more than 1,700 species of plant and animal species [22]. Taking intoaccount these facts, it is highly probably that in the forthcoming future there will not be developed a single (unic)data-base that will include such details that allow analyses on the distribution of all species recorded up to now inthe country. Consequently, more specialised data-bases are focused on certain taxonomic groups. In the presentwork we provide an example of a data-base developed for analysing only the informations on the spatialdistribution of some lizard species recorded up to the year 2007 (inclusively) in Romania.

Various works were dealing with the distribution of species belonging to Lacertidae family on national level. Thefirst these kinds of publications could be considered the work of Kirițescu, published in 1930 [16] and the work of Călinescu, published in 1931 [5]. In the early 60’s, there was published the volume of the monographical seriesFauna R.P.R., that includes further details on the distribution (on national level) of the lizards [12]. Other worksthat includes distribution of lizards are focused on smaller areas, either some local administrative territories or some (or all) counties of a certain historical region (the most representative of the later category being the workpublished în 2002 by Ghira et al. [13]), meanwhile some sinthetical works on the status of the species on nationallevel contain maps, but they are not very accurate and concrete sites are difficult to locate [23].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data-base was designed using ArcView (version 3.1) soft. The back-ground layers were topographical mapshaving 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 scale (in some cases being used maps of 1:25,000 scale). For informations on theadministrative territories of various localities we have used the digitised and georeferenced version of the mapspublished in volume No. 1 of the work entitled ”Judeţele şi oraşele României în cifre şi fapte” [21].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The data-base contains separate themes (layers or shapefiles) for each species, with ”Point” and ”Polygon”feature types. The themes with ”Point” feature type include fields with the following categories of information:

- year of record;- name of the person (in case that this information was available) who recorded the species in the respective

site/area;- details on the publication (year, authors etc.) which included the data on the respective record;

A





- name of the record site;- details related to the record (precise location, number of specimens etc.);- administrative territory (locality and county) inside which the record-site is located;- other details (subspecies – if it is / they are indicated by the source -, data on the same site or the same

record in other bibliographical sources etc.).

For analysis of the records, there were used the following codes that allow the selection, classification etc. of thedata introduced into the fields of the themes with ”Point” feature type:

– reliable record, made after 1990 (exclusively); – the record was made after 1990, but there is a certain possibility that the species were miss-identified (e.g.instead of Lacerta viridis there has been mentioned Lacerta trilineata, or if in the respective area there are nosuitable habitats for the respective species and it was not recorded before in that site);

– the record was made after 1990, but it is sure that the species were miss-identified (e.g. instead of Podarcistaurica there was mentioned Podarcis muralis from a site well-investigated by many specialists and none of these later ones recorded Podarcis muralis at that site etc.);

- the record was made after 1990, but there are the information on the site is very general (e.g.: „Cibinuluimountains”, „Oltului valley”, „Transilvaniei Plain” etc.);

- the record was made after 1990, there is mentioned a concrete site, but the author probably used informationfrom some bibliographical source and indicated a site somewhere nearby the original record-site (which canbe in other administrative territory);

- the record was made after 1990, but the mentioned record-site could not be identified on the georeferencedtopographical maps;

- the record was made after 1990, there is mentioned a concrete site, but it is certainly a wrong location (or miss-typing of the locality-name);

- the record was made after 1990, there is mentioned a concrete site, but it is highly probable that it is a wronglocation (or miss-typing of the locality-name);- the record was made after 1990, but there is not mentioned a concrete record-site (e.g. there is a map in the

publication without specification on the concrete record-sites);- the record was made after 1990, but there is not mentioned a concrete record-site and the record seems to not

be reliable (e.g. being at huge distance from the known area of distribution of the respective species);- the record was made after 1990, but the species is certainly introduced by man into the respective site;- the record was made after 1990, it is highly probable that the identification of the species was correct, but there

is need to be reconfirmed the presence of the species in the respective location.

In case of records made before 1990 (inclusively) there were used other codes which referred to the same typesof criteria as in case of the above mentioned categories.

The themes with ”Polygon” feature type include the polygons representing the 2946 local administrative territoriesthat cover the whole Romanian mainland. The themes contains fields with the following categories of information:

- year of the most recent record;

- name of the person (in case that this information was available) who most recently recorded the species inthe respective site/area;

- details on the publication (year, authors etc.) which included the data on the respective record;- name of the record site;- administrative territory (locality and county) inside which the record-site is located;- other details (subspecies – if it is / they are indicated by the source -, data on the same site or the same

record in other bibliographical sources etc.).

In case of the records (either made before 1990 or after 1990) there were used the same codes as in case of thethemes with ”Point” feature type.

The year 1990 was considered a reference year for most of the analyses carried ot with the help of the data-base,because up to that year data on the lizards distribution were gathered by few people (generally they werezoologists of variuos state institutes – universities, museums, research institutes). After 1990 the number of individual field investigations, official projects, research programs (consequently, the number of faunistical works,

too) radically increased and the amount of available and concrete information is obviously bigger in comparisonwith the possibilities for proper documentation that existed before 1990.

The Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis Linnaeus 1758): the species is distributed in all historical regions of Romania,most of the record sites being in Transilvania, second-most faunistical data having provided from Dobrogea (Fig.1). After introducing into the data-base the author’s (personal) records and the data found in variousherpetological publications nominated in two recent checklists [1; 7], respectively those from works published in1998 – 2007 period, the analyses show that in 1856 [2] – 2007 period there are 1015 records distributed on a totalnumber of 613 local administrative territories (Fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows a visual representation of the results of theanalysis which takes into account the two main reference period (records up to 1990 and records after 1990). Itcan be easily seen that in most of the local administrative territories the Sand Lizards were recorded after 1990,but we have to mention that in many of the respective areas the species was also recorded before 1990. We





assume that the species is more widely distributed in other historical regions (Banat – the southwestern part of Romania, Moldova the north-eastern part of the county, Muntenia and Oltenia – both in the southern part of Romania), and the lack of information is due to the scarce investigations carried out in those areas up to 2007.

The Green Lizard (Lacerta viridis Laurenti 1768): the species is distributed in all historical regions of Romaniaand – as in case of the Sand Lizard - most of the record sites being in Transilvania, second-most faunistical datahaving provided from Dobrogea (Fig. 3). After introducing into the data-base the author’s (personal) records andthe data found in various herpetological publicațions nominated in two recent checklists [1; 7], respectively those

from works published in 1998 – 2007 period, the analyses show that in 1856 [3] – 2007 period there are 775records distributed on a total number of 446 local administrative territories (Fig. 3). As in case of Lacerta agilis,we assume that Lacerta viridis is also more widely distributed in other historical regions (Banat – thesouthwestern part of Romania, Moldova the north-eastern part of the county, Muntenia and Oltenia – both in thesouthern part of Romania), and the lack of information is due to the scarce investigations carried out in thoseareas up to 2007. Fig. 4 shows a visual representation of the results of the analysis which takes into account thetwo main reference period (records up to 1990 and records after 1990). In most of the local administrativeterritories the Green Lizards were recorded after 1990, but we have to mention that in many of the respectiveareas the species was also recorded before 1990. Also, some of the records made before 1990 are based onmisidentification (as it is the record from the administrative territory indicated by the white arrow in Fig. 3 and Fig.4.

The Balkan Green Lizard (Lacerta trilineata Bedriaga 1886): up to know, there are only from Dobrogea reliabledata on the occurrence of the Balkan Green Lizard (Lacerta trilineata) (Fig. 5). The species was also indicated inMehedinți countz (south-western part of Romania) by Șerban M. [19], but that data is based on a misidentification(we assume that the observed specimens were probably Green Lizards – Lacerta viridis – consequently, the

record was included into the themes containing data on the distribution of Lacerta viridis, with a specific code thatindicates that in the bibliographical source the respective record was for Lacerta “trilineata”). After introducing intothe data-base the author’s (personal) records and the data found in various herpetological publicațions nominatedin two recent checklists [1; 7], respectively those from works published in 1998 – 2007 period, the analyses showthat in 1863 [18] – 2007 period there are 65 records of Balkan Green Lizards (Lacerta trilineata), distributed on atotal number of 30 local administrative territories (Fig. 5). Most of the records on occurrence of the Balkan GreenLizards (Lacerta trilineata) were made in 1991 – 2007 period (Fig. 6), even if only on few administrative territoriesare sites where the species was recorded for the first time.

The Meadow Lizard (Lacerta praticola Eversman 1834): the species is distributed in the southern half of Romania (Fig. 7), the populations probably being bigger in Caraș-Severin county (belonging to Banat region -south-western part of the country) than in other counties (Hunedoara, Constanța, respectively the neighbourhoodof Bucharest and some counties from Oltenia – south-eastern part of Romania). After introducing into the data-base the records available în in various herpetological publica țions nominated in two recent checklists [1; 7],respectively those from works published in 1998 – 2007 period, the analyses show that in 1895 [17] – 2007 periodthere are 66 records distributed on a total number of 38 local administrative territories (Fig. 7). The analysis of the

data, which takes into account the two main reference period (records up to 1990 and records after 1990) showsthat the presence of the species was reconfirmed after 1990 in only few areas (Fig. 8), but there are four localadministrative territories where the species was recorded for the first time after 1990.

The Viviparous Lizard (Lacerta vivipara Jacquin 1787): the species is distributed mainly in the upper parts of theApuseni Mountains and the Carpathians, respectively in various depressions between mountain ranges (Fig. 9),even if there are some populations that exist in the lowlands from the north-western counties of Romania [8]. Atleast one record (that one from Slătinicul Mic – located in the eastern part of Mehedinţi county [19]) (see the areaindicated by the white arrow in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) is probably based on misidentification. It may be possible thatin respective area exists a population Meadow Lizard (Lacerta praticola), the specimens belonging to this specieshaving a habitus, size and even colour and drawing somehow similar to the ones of the Viviparous Lizards(Lacerta vivipara), and the respective morphological caracteristics mislead the author. The respective record wasintroduced into the data-base (both on the theme with ”Point” feature type and on the themes with ”Polygon”feature type) with a specific code that indicates that the record is possibly based on a misidentification. After introducing into the data-base the author’s (personal) records and the data (based on observations made, till 2007

inclusively) found in various herpetological publicațions nominated in two recent checklists [1; 7], respectivelythose from works published in 1998 – 2008 period, the analyses show that in 1888 [4] – 2007 period there are440 records distributed on a total number of 226 local administrative territories (Fig. 10). Fig. 100 shows a visualrepresentation of the results of the analysis which takes into account the two main reference period (records up to1990 and records after 1990). It can be easily seen that in most of the local administrative territories theViviparous Lizards (Lacerta vivipara) were recorded after 1990, but we have to mention that in many of therespective areas the species was also recorded before 1990.

The Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis Laurenti 1768): the species is distributed mostly in the mountains, but isolatedpopulations exist in lowlands (in the western and souther part of the country, including the Danube valley and thesouthern half of Dobrogea – a historical region south-eastern Romania) (Fig. 11). After introducing into the data-base the author’s (personal) records and the data found in various herpetological publicațions nominated in two







various levels (national – see Fig. 18 -, regional, county or local level), it is also a useful tool for selection of reliable or doubtful information on various local populations, quick identification of scarcely investigated areas etc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The field works were carried out for the PhD thesis entitled ”Taxonomia şi ecologiapopulaţiilor de şopârle (Reptilia: Lacertidae) din Dobrogea de Nord” [Taxonomy and ecology of lizard (Reptilia:Lacertidae) populations from Northern Dobrogea] (University of Bucharest) and in the frame of the contracts No.5655/APM-Tulcea/2004, No. 316/I.N.C.D.D.D./2006 developed by the Danube Delta National Institute for

Research and Development – Tulcea. The author is indebted to David Bird, dr. Mihai Doroftei, Iulian Gherghel, dr.Zoltán Korsós, dr. Oana T. Moldovan for providing some of the bibliographical sources.

REFERENCES

1. ANDREI (M.), TÖRÖK (Zs.), 1997: "Addenda to A bibliographical checklist of herpetology in Romania". IN: Trav. Mus. natl.Hist. nat. "G. Antipa" , vol. 39, pp. 209 - 240. Bucharest, Romania.

2. BEDRIAGA (I. v.), 1886 - Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Lacertiden Familie. Frankfurt am Main, Germany.3. BIELZ (E. A.), 1856 - Fauna der Wirbeltiere Siebenbürgens, eine systematische Aufzählung und Beschreibung der in

Siebenbürgen vorkommen Säugetiere, Vögel, Amphibien und Fische. pp. 1 - 163. Hermannstadt (Sibiu), Romania.4. BIELZ (E. A.), 1888 - Die Fauna der Wirbeltiere Siebenbürgens nach ihrem jetzigen Bestande. IN: Verh. Mitt. Siebenb. Ver.

Naturw ., vol. 38, pp. 15 - 120. Hermannstadt (Sibiu).5. CĂLINESCU (R. I.), 1931 - Contribuţiuni sistematice şi zoogeografice la studiul amphibiilor şi reptilelor din România

[Contributions to the systematic and zoogeographic study of amphibians and reptiles from Romania]. IN: Acad. Rom. -Memoriile Secţiunii Ştiinţifice, Seria III, vol. 7, pp. 119 - 291. Bucharest, Romania. [in Romanian, with German abstract]

6. CIOCÂRLAN (V.), 2009 – Flora ilustrată a României (Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta). [Illustrated flora of Romania

(Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta)]. 1141 p. Edit. CERES, Bucharest. [in Romanian]7. COGĂLNICEANU (D.), ANDREI (M.), 1992 - A bibliographical checklist of herpetology in Romania. IN: Trav. Mus. natl. Hist.nat. "Grigore Antipa" , vol. 32, pp. 331 - 346. Bucharest, Romania.

8. COVACIU-MARCOV (S. D.), CICORT-LUCACIU (A. Şt.), FERENŢI (A.), DAVID (A.), 2008 - The distribution of lowlandZootoca vivipara populations in North-Western Romania. IN: North-Western Journal of Zoology , vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 72 - 78.Oradea, Romania.

9. COVACIU-MARCOV (S. D.), CICORT-LUCACIU (A. Şt.), SAS (I.), BOGDAN (H.), PUSTA (C.), 2003 - Preliminary data aboutthe distribution of Podarcis taurica in the North-Western parts of Romania. IN: Analele Univ. Oradea, Fasc. Biologie, vol.10, pp. 111 - 117. Oradea, Romania.

10. DELY (O.), 1965 – Notes herpetologiques. I. Quatre lieux de recolte resemment decouverts du lezard taurique (Lacertataurica Pallas) en Hongrie. IN: Vertebrata Hungarica – Musei Historico-Naturalis Hungarici , vol. 7, fasc. 1 – 2, pp. 9 – 12.Budapest, Hungary.

11. DELY (O.), KOVÁCS (L.), 1961 – Contributions a la repartition du Lezard taurique (Lacerta taurica Pallas) en Hongrie. IN:Vertebrata Hungarica – Musei Historico-Naturalis Hungarici , vol. 3, fasc. 1 – 2, pp. 57 – 63. Budapest, Hungary.

12. FUHN (I.), VANCEA (Şt.), 1961 - Reptilia. IN: Fauna R.P.R ., vol. 14, fasc. 2, 352 p. Edit. Acad. R.P.R., Bucharest, Romania.[in Romanian]

13. GHIRA (I.), VENCZEL (M.), COVACIU-MARCOV (S.), MARA (G.), GHILE (P.), HARTEL (T.), TÖRÖK (Zs.), FARKAS (L.),RACZ (T.), FARKAS (Z.), BRAD (T.), 2002 - Mapping of Transylvanian herpetofauna. IN: Nymphaea. Folia naturae

Bihariae, vol. 29, pp. 145 - 201. Oradea, Romania. [in Romanian, with English abstract]14. JESSAT (M.), 1998 - Herpetologische Notizen aus Rumänien (1992 – 1997). IN: Mauritiana, vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 598 - 600.Altenburg, Germany.

15. KIRIŢESCU (C.), 1901 - Contributions a l'etude de la faune herpetologique de Roumanie. Premiere partie. Sauriens etophidiens. IN: Buletinul Societăţii de Sciinţe, vol. 10, No. 3 - 4, pp. 303 - 328. Bucharest, Romania.

16. KIRIŢESCU (C.), 1930 - Cercetări asupra faunei herpetologice a României [Researches on the Romanian herpetofauna].132 p. Edit. „Cartea Românească”, Bucharest, Romania. [in Romanian]

17. MÉHELY (L.), 1895 - Lacerta praticola Eversm. in Ungarn. IN: Math. Naturwiss. Berichten. aus Ungarn, vol. 12, pp. 255 -261. Budapest, Hungary.

18. STEINDACHNER (F.), 1863 - Verzeichniss der von H. Grafen Ferrari und H. Custos-Adjuncten Zelebor in Siebenbürgen, inden östlichen Theilen Slavoniens, in der Nähe der Theiss-Mündungen und bei Tuldscha (nächst den Donau-Mündungen)gesammelten Fische und Reptilien. IN: Verh. K - K. Zool. Bot. Gess., vol. 12, pp. 1121 - 1123. Wien, Austria.

19. ŞERBAN (M.), 1972 - Contribuţii la studiul herpetofaunei din jud. Mehedinţi (II) [Contributions to the study of theherpetofauna from Mehedinșți county (II)]. IN: Stud. Cerc. Subcomis. Ocrot. Mon. Nat. Oltenia, pp. 171 - 179. Târgu Jiu,Romania. [in Romanian]

20. VLAD (I. A.), BĂBĂLEAN (A.), BĂNĂRESCU (P. M.), CANTOREANU (M.), CÂMPEANU (M.), CIOBANU (M.), CIUBUC (C.),COROIU (I.), GIURGINCA (A.), IEPURE (S.), ILIE (V.), ILUȚ (I.), MAICAN (S.), MARKÓ (B.), MITROIU (M.), MOLDOVAN(O. T.), MUNTEANU (D. V.), NEGREA (Șt.), NIȚU (E.), PETROVICI (M.), PISICĂ (C.), POPOVICI (I.), RÁKOSY (L.),

RUICĂNESCU (A.), TABACARU (I.), TEODOR (L. A.), UJVÁROSI (L.), VASILIU-OROMULU (L.), ZAMFIRESCU (Șt.) –Lista faunistică a României (specii terestre și de apă dulce) [Checklist of Romanian fauna (terrestrial and freshwater species)] (eds. MOLDOVAN O.T, CÎMPEAN M., BORDA D., IEPURE S. ILIE V.). 411 p. Printed by Casa Cărții de Știință,Cluj Napoca, Romania. [in Romanian]

21. * * *, 1994 – Județele României [Counties of Romania]. IN: Județele și orașele României în cifre și fapte, vol. 1, 646 p.Bucharest, Romania. [in Romanian]

22. * * *, 1997 – Black Sea Biological Diversity – Romania National Report (compiled by A. Petranu). IN: Black SeaEnvironmental Series, vol. 4, 314 p. New York.

23. * * *, 2005 – Cartea Roşie a vertebratelor din România (eds. Botnariuc N. and Tatole V.). 260 p. Published by Curtea VecheTrading S.R.L., Bucharest, Romania. [in Romanian]

Manuscript received: February, 2010 Manuscript accepted: June, 2010

Printed: August 2010





Fig. 1. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Sand Lizards (Lacertaagilis) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 2. . Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Sand Lizards (Lacertaagilis) before 1990, respectively after 1990.

Note. With red there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at least one times, but onlybefore 1990; with green there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at least one timeafter 1990 (either it is the first record in that area or it is a reconfirmation of the presence of the species in that area).





Fig. 3. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Green Lizards (Lacertaviridis) up to the year 2007.

Note. white arrow – record based on misidentification.

Fig. 4. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Green Lizards (Lacertaviridis) before 1990, respectively after 1990.

Note. With red there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at least one times, but onlybefore 1990; with green there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at least one timeafter 1990 (either it is the first record in that area or it is a reconfirmation of the presence of the species in that area); white arrow

– record based on misidentification.





Fig. 5. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Balkan Green Lizards(Lacerta trilineata) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 6. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Balkan Green Lizards(Lacerta trilineata) before 1990, respectively after 1990.






Fig. 7. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Meadow Lizards (Lacerta praticola) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 8. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Meadow Lizards (Lacerta praticola) before 1990, respectively after 1990.






Fig. 9. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Viviparous Lizards(Lacerta vivipara) up to the year 2007.

Note. white arrow – record probably based on misidentification.

Fig. 10. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Viviparous Lizards(Lacerta vivipara) before 1990, respectively after 1990.


– record probably based on misidentification.





Fig. 11. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Wall Lizards (Podarcismuralis) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 12. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Wall Lizards (Podarcismuralis) before 1990, respectively after 1990.


– record based on misidentification; orange arrow – first record (actual northern limit of the species distribution in Dobrogea);white circles – administrative territories where the records are probably based on misidentification; orange circle – area wherethe records are surely based on misidentification (confusion with Podarcis taurica).





Fig. 13. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Balkan Wall Lizards(Podarcis taurica) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 14. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Balkan Wall Lizards(Podarcis taurica) before 1990, respectively after 1990.






Fig. 15. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Steppe Runners (Eremiasarguta) up to the year 2007.

Fig. 16. Administrative territories from Romania where there was at least one record on Steppe Runners (Eremiasarguta) before 1990, respectively after 1990.

Note. With red there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at least one times, but onlybefore 1990; with green there are highlighted the administrative territories where the species was recorded at one time after 1990 (either it is the first record in that area or it is a reconfirmation of the presence of the species in that area).





Fig. 17. Adult specimen of Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis) from the population discovered in May 17th, 2007 atCanaralele Hâr șovei (Constanța county, Romania).

Fig. 18. Administrative territories from Romania where there was in the 1856 – 2007 period at least one record of at least one species belonging to Lacertidae family.

Torok 2010 Lacertidae distribution Romania

Documents